It's not that black people don't value education, which is what you seem to be inferring. The problem is that society as a whole undermined the ability for black children to get an education on par with white people until the 1970s.

Yeah, it was separate...but it was equal

All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.

Half a century's difference there. Look, I'm not really trying to draw a direct comparison about who had it worse. I think an argument can be made either way. I'm just going back to my point that without more clearly set goals w/re to things like AA and the ERA, these fights are going to fester.

Originally Posted by John Steinbeck

Sectional football games have the glory and the despair of war, and when a Texas team takes the field against a foreign state, it is an army with banners.

EXACTLY my problem with it. Legislating arbitrary notions of fairness without any real measure of success or well defined goals is foolish.

I would say that doing nothing because you can't measure out just how much "fairness" each individual should get, to the penny, is even more foolish.

The problem of people being disadvantaged by reason of race alone is a serious problem, and a self-perpetuating problem. It isn't going to go away by itself. AA is one attempt to alleviate it by trying to break the cycle. I'm less interested in counting pennies spent fixing the problem than I am about finding practical solutions that help to create a society that provides equal opportunity for all.

Love how you use the word "Groups" you mean the hacks who don't have the test scores and grades?

Well, the archetypal example provided in this thread is a black guy who scored 10% lower than a white guy. If you think that small a variation in scores separates a successful captain of industry from a "hack," I don't know what to tell you.

Assuming that's what they are, then the question for me is, why are they "hacks who don't have the test scores and grades?" The answer is likely to be because of the disadvantages they face because of race.

I would say that doing nothing because you can't measure out just how much "fairness" each individual should get, to the penny, is even more foolish.

The problem of people being disadvantaged by reason of race alone is a serious problem, and a self-perpetuating problem. It isn't going to go away by itself. AA is one attempt to alleviate it by trying to break the cycle. I'm less interested in counting pennies spent fixing the problem than I am about finding practical solutions that help to create a society that provides equal opportunity for all.

Tell me you don't see the irony in stating you want an "equal opportunity for all" by holding some back. Tell me you don't.

It's not that black people don't value education, which is what you seem to be inferring. The problem is that society as a whole undermined the ability for black children to get an education on par with white people until the 1970s.

Think about that. The color TV was popular before minorities were allowed to go to schools with white kids in nice neighborhoods without protest.

No. Either I mistyped or a misunderstanding. And also re read my last statement. AA was meant for a fair shot in the higher education at a time some students had the grades and test scores but were turned down. Now it's hurting ALL students.

Half a century's difference there. Look, I'm not really trying to draw a direct comparison about who had it worse. I think an argument can be made either way. I'm just going back to my point that without more clearly set goals w/re to things like AA and the ERA, these fights are going to fester.

Okay, so the measure is a date range? Jim Crow has now been off the books for nearly half a century. Problem solved! No more systemic oppression, right?

Sorry, just because they never put a name to discrimination against women doesn't mean that it didn't exist.

Originally Posted by jderpack

The problem of people being disadvantaged by reason of race alone is a serious problem, and a self-perpetuating problem. It isn't going to go away by itself. AA is one attempt to alleviate it by trying to break the cycle. I'm less interested in counting pennies spent fixing the problem than I am about finding practical solutions that help to create a society that provides equal opportunity for all.

First of all, your "counting pennies" allusion is a poor one. It implies that we're only arguing over minutia which is NOT the case. We're actually discussing millions and millions of dollars over the course of decades now.

Secondly, you're arguing from an assumption that our social perceptions are in agreement. That, to steal a phrase, "the science is settled" regarding an existing problem. I do NOT accept your notion that there still exists a systemic and self-perpetuating form of discrimination against blacks.

Do racists still exist? Yep! On both sides of the equation by my experience. Is that the prevailing culprit for their current lower standard of living? I'm not convinced and I think a lot of folks agree with me. That's why it's important to setting some benchmarks and some more concrete goals around this issue.

It's really hard to work toward something when you don't really know what it is you're supposed to be working toward.

Last edited by Seabird; 10-10-2012 at 04:58 PM.

Originally Posted by John Steinbeck

Sectional football games have the glory and the despair of war, and when a Texas team takes the field against a foreign state, it is an army with banners.

You're only treated as if you benefitted from slavery if you view AA as a punishment for you. It isn't. Your argument is akin to saying "I don't have kids in school, why should I be punished with taxes that pay for schools?"

The reality is that alleviating historical and present-day disadvantages faced by certain classes of people is a program that benefits everyone, just like you paying for other peoples' kids' educations.

I see the potential good. But when its said "well your parents got and kept jobs because they were white and that's why you're better off now" in response to a previous post, then I'm not in that group.

Something has to be done, but not at my cost. Call me selfish, but I didn't do anything wrong, neither did my family and I'm not racist. I don't like the fact that I have or might have to at one point in time deal with the consequences for the f-ck ups of others. I don't like being bunched into the group of people who benefited from slavery or racism.

Well, the archetypal example provided in this thread is a black guy who scored 10% lower than a white guy. If you think that small a variation in scores separates a successful captain of industry from a "hack," I don't know what to tell you.

Assuming that's what they are, then the question for me is, why are they "hacks who don't have the test scores and grades?" The answer is likely to be because of the disadvantages they face because of race.

Try to stay on point for the thread. This is about education (college) and not about the work place. The person who has the higher grades and test scores should be right at the front of line. The fair part is some studied harder and it reflected. People who test lower will have to try harder or attend a school that will fit there needs. AA had a purpose at one time.

Okay, so the measure is a date range? Jim Crow has now been off the books for nearly half a century. Problem solved! No more systemic oppression, right?

Sorry, just because they never put a name to discrimination against women doesn't mean that it didn't exist.

First of all, your "counting pennies" allusion is a poor one. It implies that we're only arguing over minutia which is NOT the case. We're actually discussing millions and millions of dollars over the course of decades now.

Secondly, you're arguing from an assumption that our social perceptions are in agreement. That, to steal a phrase, "the science is settled" regarding an existing problem. I do NOT accept your notion that there still exists a systemic and self-perpetuating form of discrimination against blacks.

Do racists still exist? Yep! On both sides of the equation by my experience. Is that the prevailing culprit for their current lower standard of living? I'm not convinced and I think a lot of folks agree with me. That's why it's important to being setting some benchmarks and some more concrete goals around this issue.

It's really hard to work toward something when you don't really know what it is you're supposed to be working toward.

/ thread, killed it, no murdered it!

BTW did you slam whatever typing device down and did a dance? Epic post

Tell me you don't see the irony in stating you want an "equal opportunity for all" by holding some back. Tell me you don't.

There's nothing ironic about that at all. Leveling out the opportunities available to all under the circumstances entails reducing the opportunities available to some. Unless you can think of some way to leave everyone's opportunities fully intact while simultaneously opening all those doors to disadvantaged groups.

First of all, your "counting pennies" allusion is a poor one. It implies that we're only arguing over minutia which is NOT the case. We're actually discussing millions and millions of dollars over the course of decades now.

Secondly, you're arguing from an assumption that our social perceptions are in agreement. That, to steal a phrase, "the science is settled" regarding an existing problem. I do NOT accept your notion that there still exists a systemic and self-perpetuating form of discrimination against blacks.

Millions of dollars over the course of decades is "pennies." It's a piddling amount of money. I wouldn't be opposed to being more efficient with that money, but I would be opposed with increasing the costs of such programs a hundred-fold to ensure that no one gets one cent more than the amount they've been disadvantaged by.

The idea that, because these things are hard to value precisely, we should therefore do nothing is nonsense. It's the same thing as saying "we don't know by exactly how much man is responsible for global warming; therefore, we shouldn't do anything." There's a problem, we know how to fix it.

As for your disagreement with respect to whether blacks are disadvantaged: what do you propose is the reason for their being economically and socially disadvantaged if not the racism they suffered in the past and the consequences of that racism today?

You're the one that started bringing up dates.
I completely agree that women face serious discrimination issues, even today. It's fairly pervasive in engineering.

Fair enough. I was just trying to make a single illustration showing that in some respects, black men outpaced women in the equal rights movement. My overall point remains though; it's impossible to really compare the two, yet sometimes these fairness laws force us to do just that.

Originally Posted by John Steinbeck

Sectional football games have the glory and the despair of war, and when a Texas team takes the field against a foreign state, it is an army with banners.

Something has to be done, but not at my cost. Call me selfish, but I didn't have any kids, neither did my family and I'm not a breeder. I don't like the fact that I have or might have to at one point in time pay for the consequences of other people f***ing. I don't like being bunched into the group of people who had children and need them educated.

I've replaced the things you said with analogous complaints respecting education of other peoples' kids.

Societal problems are paid for by society, not always by the exact people who caused them. This is a societal problem.

Try to stay on point for the thread. This is about education (college) and not about the work place. The person who has the higher grades and test scores should be right at the front of line. The fair part is some studied harder and it reflected. People who test lower will have to try harder or attend a school that will fit there needs. AA had a purpose at one time.

Higher education is also an opportunity, that opens doors to better employment. The two go hand-in-hand. If society's (past) discrimination causes blacks to be unable to make the grade despite their best efforts, then we deny them higher education (and thereby, better jobs), their kids will have the same problem because they'll recognize that it doesn't matter how hard they work. It's self-perpetuating.

AA is designed to break the cycle. Let their best efforts get them the opportunities that higher education present. The children of those now contributing members to society will recognize that hard work pays off and do the same.

I don't see the advantage of the former set of circumstances, which you seem to be advocating. I do see the potential advantages of the latter.

The idea that, because these things are hard to value precisely, we should therefore do nothing is nonsense. It's the same thing as saying "we don't know by exactly how much man is responsible for global warming; therefore, we shouldn't do anything." There's a problem, we know how to fix it.

This is the second time you've said this in reply to me. Where did I say that we should do nothing? Please point that out for me because I must have blacked out (oops, no pun intended) and forgotten that I typed it.

As for your disagreement with respect to whether blacks are disadvantaged: what do you propose is the reason for their being economically and socially disadvantaged if not the racism they suffered in the past and the consequences of that racism today?

A cultural malaise perpetuated by an entitlement mentality in turn fueled by poorly drafted anti-discrimination laws and government handouts.

Originally Posted by John Steinbeck

Sectional football games have the glory and the despair of war, and when a Texas team takes the field against a foreign state, it is an army with banners.

This is the second time you've said this in reply to me. Where did I say that we should do nothing? Please point that out for me because I must have blacked out (oops, no pun intended) and forgotten that I typed it.

It was an assumption on my part. My apologies.

What program that would be more effective than AA are you proposing?

Originally Posted by Seabird

A cultural malaise perpetuated by an entitlement mentality in turn fueled by poorly drafted anti-discrimination laws and government handouts.

I disagree that this is the cause. There have been endless studies showing that blacks still stand at a disadvantage for reasons out of their own control. I remember one a while ago wherein two identical candidates on paper, one with a black name and one without, were treated differently by potential employers. I think this sort of discrimination, coupled with the much lower starting point of many blacks as a result of historical inequalities, is a much larger cause.

Thank you. No program in particular that I can find within government. However, in the private industry, EVERY successful project has a beginning and an end in mind with well defined benchmarks and goals.

I disagree that this is the cause. There have been endless studies showing that blacks still stand at a disadvantage for reasons out of their own control. I remember one a while ago wherein two identical candidates on paper, one with a black name and one without, were treated differently by potential employers. I think this sort of discrimination, coupled with the much lower starting point of many blacks as a result of historical inequalities, is a much larger cause.

I am familiar with this type of study. They're rather common. I had a friend who wrote her dissertation on the subject when she got her Masters in Social Work several years ago. Her conclusion was that the name really was the problem - not the person.

While a black candidate with a non-WASPY sounding name might be passed over for someone who sounds more white, this isn't a new phenomenon. American history is rife with examples of immigrants changing their names in an effort to assimilate.

My daughter's middle name is Sussel. I chose that in order to honor my former father-in-law who didn't have any sons of his own to carry on the family name (Sussman). His parents were Eastern European Jewish immigrants fleeing the holocaust. When they got here, they changed their names from Sussel to Sussman.

Since the Afro-American militancy movements of the 60s and 70s, blacks in this country began to adopt strange qausi-African sounding names in an effort to gain some sense of cultural identity. I'd offer that those names indicate, in a lot of mainstream-minded folks, an anti-establishment identity. Not just black, but Huey Long Black Panther black.

Is it fair? No, probably not. I'd offer the fix is a whole lot easier than throwing arbitrary laws at it. Give the kids a normal name.

But they won't. And that's where part of the internal problem is that I described above. As a parent, I'm going to do whatever I can to give my kids the best advantages possible in life. If I read somewhere that boys named John are more likely to become millionaires before they're 30 than any other name, guess what I'm going to name my son.

Tell someone that they're a victim and that they deserve something extra enough, pretty soon they're going to believe you. And then they become over-reliant on it. And suddenly, you're not really doing them any favors anymore.

Last edited by Seabird; 10-10-2012 at 05:48 PM.

Originally Posted by John Steinbeck

Sectional football games have the glory and the despair of war, and when a Texas team takes the field against a foreign state, it is an army with banners.